Republican NeoCon(victs) Indictments/Investigation

[esskreemr]

There will be a special election held.

In many states, stealing a car valued a few thousand dollars is considered a felony. In some states 'bouncing' a check for any amount is a felony. I had a friend who wrote a bad check for $20.00. She was charged with a felony.

In most states is a felony to carry over a certain amount of Marijuana. They can actually charge you with intent to distribute (drug dealing) even if it is for personal use.

He is charged with conspiracy and tax evasion. He didn't just fess up. He was charged and then 'plea bargained' a guily plea. He faces up to 10 years, but it's very unlikely, unless he gets a really angry judge, to recieve the full sentence. Since he plea bargained the guilty plea, it's very likely he'll get probation or a home watch setup.

Is it harsh? Yes. Do I agree with a 10 year sentence? I don't know all the facts, but considering that he is forfeiting, hopefully, most of the ill-gotten gains of his crimes, a few years at least would be in order.

[Epee_Pox]

In many states, stealing a car valued a few thousand dollars is considered a felony. In some states 'bouncing' a check for any amount is a felony. I had a friend who wrote a bad check for $20.00. She was charged with a felony.

A felony is simply a crime for which a punishment of more than one year of incarceration is possible. But most felony convictions result in probation or shorter sentences. The long sentences are usually reserved for more serious crimes and for repeat offenders.

Regarding the bounced check, I seriously doubt your friend went to prison for that offense.

And why shouldn't it be a felony -- ignoring the amount, just the mere act of intentionally writing a check to pay for something with the knowledge that you don't have the money in the account to cover it. You're defrauding the person of the goods and services you just "bought," committing larceny in the process. You're also inflicting unnecessary expense on that person, who now has to pay his bank a fee for having submitted an NSF check (in your friend's case, probably more than the amount of the bad check in the first place) and must spend more money and waste time and resources in trying to collect that money from you again. It's also a fraud on the bank itself. And recall that most bad checks are written by scammers in an ongoing scheme of stealing.

Of course the amount stolen must be taken into account. Everything else equal, you wouldn't want to punish the theft of $20 the same as the theft of $25 million. The various levels of punishment are of course defined differently by each state, just like everything else in criminal law. Some states won't charge you with a felony unless the bad check was for $200, some say $300, some say more, some don't ever call it a felony, some call all of them felonies. Some of these laws were written many decades ago, when those amounts equated to significantly more value.

In most states is a felony to carry over a certain amount of Marijuana. They can actually charge you with intent to distribute (drug dealing) even if it is for personal use.

Most states punish possession of any controlled substance, whether it be marijuana or ecstasy or meth or heroin, depending on how much is actually possessed. And of course, at some level, the amount possessed will take you out of misdemeanor-land into felony weight. This should not be surprising.

As for possession with intent to sell, that is usually a felony. Most states try to punish dealers rather than users, and try to define the "mere possession" amounts as those small quantities that a mere user is likely to possess. At a certain amount, the law is going to presume that the possessor did not have it for his own personal use, but rather intended to sell it. This is a rebuttable presumption, of course, but it is also a rational one. It's hard to argue that a certain amount of ANY drug is for personal use. Two ounces of coke, a pound of pot, ten X pills, a quarter-ounce of heroin, for example.

Of course, what someone is charged with depends hugely on the circumstances. If a guy has been standing on the street corner making a series of fleeting hand-to-hand contacts with passers-by, and some of those passers-by were stopped and found to have vials of crack in their pockets, and the guy on the corner is stopped and found to have only a single vial of crack plus a wad of cash on him, he is probably going to be charged with felony possession-with-intent for that single vial. On the other hand, an obvious crackhead found hunkered down with dozens of vials in her pocket is going to be charged with mere possession, and sentenced to a drug treatment program.

He faces up to 10 years, but it's very unlikely, unless he gets a really angry judge, to recieve the full sentence. Since he plea bargained the guilty plea, it's very likely he'll get probation or a home watch setup.

Is it harsh? Yes.

Cunningham did not report at least 2.4 million dollars in income from bribes he accepted. That's tax fraud, defrauding the taxpayers of revenue they were entitled to. Certainly worth a couple years in prison.

Cunningham abused the trust of the citizens, using his elected position not to look out for the interests of his district, but rather to enrich himself at the expense of honest people who, because of his actions, lost contracts and income, and their employees didn't get work they ought to have gotten. Certainly worth a couple more years in prison.

Nobody gets sentenced to the max, unless the crime was unbelievably abhorrent, or unless the criminal is such a recidivist that there's no point in hoping for rehabilitation.

And he did take the plea prior to indictment, which does make for a better deal. The best deal is available before the charges have been formally filed, and the offer will get stiffer the closer the case gets to trial (the incentive being to get guilty people to admit it sooner rather than later, and save society the expense of the legal process to get to the same conviction).

Also, Cunningham has promised to cooperate with the ongoing corruption investigation. This could knock his sentencing range down a couple of levels, depending on how helpful he is.

Finally, the sentencing guidelines are no longer requirements, but are only recommendations that the judge need not adhere to.

So taking all that into consideration, I would not be surprised if his ultimate prison sentence is considerably less than the 10-year figure you're seeing in the papers.

[L.O.A.S.]

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

Colonel Tomb

On the tenth of May, 1972 Lieutenant Randy Cunningham and his RIO, LT(JG) Willie Driscoll, flying a Phantom F-4J, ShowTime 100, would shoot down two MIGs, making them the first American aces of the Vietnam War. Then they would shoot down a third. This account from Ace Pilots:

They were participating in a strike against the Hai Dong railyards, on flak suppression, when a score of enemy fighters challenged them. ... After dropping their bombs on some warehouses, Showtime 100 loitered to cover the A-7 fighter-bombers still engaged. Responding to a call for help, Cunningham took his F-4J into a group of MiG-17s ("Frescoes"), two of which promptly jumped them. Heeding a "break" warning from Grant in Showtime 113, Cunningham broke sharply and the lead pursuing MiG-17 overshot him. He instantly reversed his turn, putting the MiG dead ahead; he loosed a Sidewinder and it destroyed the MiG.

... VF-96 Exec, Cdr Dwight Timm had three MiGs on his tail, one being very close, in Timm's blind spot. ... After more maneuvering, Cunningham re-engaged the MiG-17 still threatening his XO. He called again for him to break, adding, "If you don't break NOW you are going to die." The XO finally accelerated and broke hard right. The MiG couldn't follow Showtime 112's high speed turn, leaving "Duke" clear to fire.

Calling "Fox Two," Cunningham fired his second Sidewinder while the MiG still inside the minimum firing range. But the high speed of the Fresco worked against it, as the Sidewinder had time to arm and track to its target. It homed into the tail pipe of the MiG-17 and exploded. Seconds later, Cunningham and Driscoll, finding themselves alone in a sky full of bandits, disengaged and headed for the Constellation.

As they approached the coast at 10,000 feet, Cunningham spotted another MiG-17 heading straight for them. ... The MiG's nose lit up like a Roman candle! ... In an effort to out-climb the MiG, Cunningham went to afterburners, which put him above the enemy aircraft. As he started to pull over the top, the MiG began shooting. This was Cunningham's second near-fatal mistake; he had given his opponent a predictable flight path, and he had taken advantage of it. Duke rolled off to the other side, and the MiG closed in behind.

Not wanting to admit he was getting beaten, he called to Willie, "That S.O.B. is really lucky! All right, we'll get this guy now!" With the MiG at his four o'clock, he nosed down to pick up speed and energy. Cunningham watched until the MiG pilot likewise committed his nose down. "Gotcha!" he thought, as he pulled up into the MiG, rolled over the top, got behind it. While too close to fire a missile, the maneuver placed Duke in an advantageous position.

He pulled down, holding top rudder, to press for a shot, and the MiG pulled up into him, shooting! He thought, "Maybe this guy isn�t just lucky after all!" The Communist pilot used the same maneuver Duke had just tried, pulling up into him, and forcing an overshoot. The two jets were in a classic rolling scissors. As his nose committed, Duke pulled up into his opponent again.

As they slowed to 200 knots, the MiG's superior maneuverability at low speed would gave him more advantage. A good fighter pilot, like Kenny Rogers' poker player, "knows when to hold, and knows when to fold." This was the MiG's game; it was time to go. When the MiG raised his nose for the next climb, Cunningham lit his afterburners and, at 600 knots airspeed, quickly got two miles away from the MiG, out of his ATOL missile range. ... Cunningham nosed up 60 degrees, the MiG stayed right with him. Just as before, they went into another vertical rolling scissors.

... Driscoll strained to keep sight of the MiG, as Duke pitched back towards him for the third time.

Once again, he met the MiG-17 head-on, this time with an offset so he couldn't fire his guns. As he pulled up vertically he could again see his determined adversary a few yards away. Still gambling, Cunningham tried one more thing. He yanked the throttles back to idle and popped the speed brakes, in a desperate attempt to drop behind the MiG. But, in doing so, he had thrown away the Phantom's advantage, its superior climbing ability. And if he stalled out ...

The MiG shot out in front of Cunningham for the first time, the Phantom's nose was 60 degrees above the horizon with airspeed down to 150 knots. He had to go to full burner to hold his position. The surprised enemy pilot attempted to roll up on his back above him. Using only rudder to avoid stalling the F-4, he rolled to the MiG's blind side. He tried to reverse his roll, but as his wings banked sharply, he briefly stalled the aircraft and his nose fell through. Behind the MiG, but still too close for a shot. "This is no place to be with a MiG-17," he thought, "at 150 knots... this slow, he can take it right away from you."

Now the MiG tried to disengage; he pitched over the top and started straight down. Cunningham pulled hard over, followed, and maneuvered to obtain a firing position. With the distracting heat of the ground, Cunningham wasn't sure that a Sidewinder would home in on the MiG, but he called "Fox Two," and squeezed one off. The missile came off the rail and flew right at the MiG. He saw little flashes off the MiG, and thought he had missed. As he started to fire his last Sidewinder, there was an abrupt burst of flame. Black smoke erupted from the Fresco. It didn't seem to go out of control; the fighter just kept slanting down, smashing into the ground at about 45 degrees angle.

Just who the third pilot Cunningham shot down that day is the subject of dispute. Some say it was "the top Vietnamese ace known as 'Col. Tomb' in the media" other said it was "a flight leader or squadron commander of the 923rd Regiment".

On November 29, 2005 Congressman Randy Cunningham pled guilty to receiving $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors and evading more than $1M in taxes, according to the Los Angeles Times.

"I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my high office," Cunningham, 63, said outside the federal courthouse. "I know I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation [and] my high office." Cunningham left without answering questions.

John Houseman, in his poem To An Athlete Dying Young wrote about the human need to keep youthful triumph safe from the corruption of time.

Now you will not swell the rout
Of lads that wore their honours out,
Runners whom renown outran
And the name died before the man.

Commentary
They were two different days, separated by 32 years. The grandfather paradox argues that the past exists independently of the present, that it remains graven in the mind of God, beyond our power to alter -- or to besmirch. Whatever Randy Cunningham did in later life, it remains true that on the tenth of May, 1972 ShowTime 100 would shoot down two MIGs, then a third. ...

[Inquartata]

I just wonder if he'll try to run for re-election from prison.

[esskreemr]

“Duke Cunningham is a hero,” DeLay said during a press briefing Tuesday. “He is an honorable man of high integrity.”

Wow, wonder what it would take for DeLay to label someone as 'low' integrity and dishonorable...

Don't worry Mr. DeLay, we think you are an honorable man of high integrity <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

[L.O.A.S.]

Wow, wonder what it would take for DeLay to label someone as 'low' integrity and dishonorable...

Don't worry Mr. DeLay, we think you are an honorable man of high integrity <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

One could get the impression that Mr. Delay made that remark just yesterday, as opposed to over 6 months ago. You don't happen to work for the New York Times, do you? <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

[Fencing Jesus]

Esskreemer is just pissed that Cunningham shot down those MIGs being flown by his America hating lefty buddies.

Anybody brave enough to kill communists a hero in my book.

[jeff]

DeLay said it in June 14, "after calls from congressional Democrats to investigate the Republican appropriator for selling his San Diego home to a defense contractor whose firm had received $65 million in federal funds in 2004."

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/expo...505/delay.html

For DeLay to say it now would merely be foolish. given that Cunningham has pleaded guilty. In June it was worse, defending a colleague's illegal and unethical act.

[L.O.A.S.]

For DeLay to say it now would merely be foolish. given that Cunningham has pleaded guilty. In June it was worse, defending a colleague's illegal and unethical act.

At the time, he was defending a colleague against alleged illegal/unethical accusations.

“We’re always concerned when a member of Congress violates the rules of the House,” DeLay said before adding, “Just because it appears in an article doesn’t mean a thing.”

[jeff]

At the time, the facts of the case were already not in doubt: Cunningham had sold his house to the defence contractor, which then sold it at a $700K loss.

[esskreemr]

I just wonder if he'll try to run for re-election from prison.

Yes, I've heard that Lil' Bubba REALLY wants to be his running 'mate'.

[Inquartata]

Yes, I've heard that Lil' Bubba REALLY wants to be his running 'mate'.

Bah. He's a REPUBLICAN politician. He'll be going to one of those 'country club' prisons. His cell mate will probably be named C. Standridge ( or possibly Thurston ). Real prisons are reserved for the hoi polloi on the Left.

[esskreemr]

Bah. He's a REPUBLICAN politician. He'll be going to one of those 'country club' prisons. His cell mate will probably be named C. Standridge ( or possibly Thurston ). Real prisons are reserved for the hoi polloi on the Left.

Yes, that's true. Let's hope that he at least has to carry his own golf bag around.

[Inquartata]

The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

[esskreemr]

OK. 1 count of conspiracy was thrown out in DeLay's case. His trial should start next year. Assuming that he's innocent, his defense will most likely want the quickest date they can get instead of postponing it with legal maneuvering. Else, he runs the risk of the Republicans voting someone else in as Majority Leader.

[Slim]

OK. 1 count of conspiracy was thrown out in DeLay's case.

Must have been a sad sad day in La Casa D'Esc.

[Inquartata]

Conspiracy is a tough charge to prove. The easier one remains. If I were Delay I'd have rather had that one dismissed. I'm sure the prosecutor is not too disappointed with the result, and likewise Ess.

Hey, BTW, Ess: Why do you have Edew as your avatar now?

[esskreemr]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/abramoff.plea/index.html

Former high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion charges, agreeing to cooperate in a federal corruption probe in Washington.

I wonder just how loud this lil' piggie will squeal...

[epeeisky]

I wonder just how loud this lil' piggie will squeal...

This is more of a legal question. If one person connected to a case pleads guilty, can that be used in another persons trial connected to that case. I.E. can Abramhoff's confession be used to help convict Delay even if Abramhoff doesn't squeal about Delay?

[Philistine]

This is more of a legal question. If one person connected to a case pleads guilty, can that be used in another persons trial connected to that case. I.E. can Abramhoff's confession be used to help convict Delay even if Abramhoff doesn't squeal about Delay?

It doesn't work that way.

When someone pleads guilty and "squeals," they are generally agreeing to cooperate in another case--testifying against someone else. The mere fact that Abramhoff (for instance) pleads guilty (or is convicted) cannot be used as evidence that someone else is guilty--Delay, for example--even if what Abramhoff pled guilty to was conduct involving Delay.

What is generally the goal in cases like this is to get one person to agree to testify against others, and then use the fact that their former compatriot is going to testify against them to convince the others to plead guilty and testify against still more others, and so on--a kind of chain reaction.

Particularly in Federal Court (although less so since a recent Supreme Court case), cooperating with the Government and helping them get other pleas/convictions is one of the only realistic ways to lessen a potential sentence.

--Philistine